Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The Committee will receive oral evidence from officials from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health in a joint evidence session on the equal protection for children by the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement. The officials providing evidence today are Andrew Dawson, director of the criminal justice policy and legislation division, Department of Justice; Dr Oisin Martin, co-director of the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), Department of Health; Pamela Mooney, social work lead for the family support and safeguarding children team, strategic planning and performance group, Department of Health; and Natalie Whelehan, CEO of Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI).

You are all very welcome. I invite you to make an opening statement. Andrew, are you kicking off?

Mr Andrew Dawson (Department of Justice): I will open, and Natalie may have something to add when I have finished.

Thank you very much for your time today and for the opportunity to brief the Committee. As members are aware, the current law in Northern Ireland on the physical punishment of children is based on the concept of reasonable chastisement. Article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 has the effect of restricting the grounds on which the defence of reasonable chastisement can be used. That means that, if a parent or adult smacks a child and is prosecuted, they can defend themselves through reasonable chastisement but only provided that the harm is minor.

The defence of reasonable chastisement has been repealed in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and it remains in force in England and here. The Justice Minister here is supportive of repealing the defence in Northern Ireland. She has met, among others, the Children's Commissioner and representatives from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the NSPCC.

In its policy paper from 2024, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health made the case that children who experience physical punishment are 2·6 times more likely to experience mental health problems than children who do not. That is a finding from a 40-year longitudinal study in New Zealand, which was published in 2023. The college also made the case that children who experience physical punishment are 2·3 times more likely to go on to experience significant harm through more serious forms of physical abuse. That finding was from an article in the 'Journal of Surgical Research' in 2006. The college also made the point:

That was from an article in the 'International Journal of Children's Rights' in 2017.

The royal college stated in respect of Northern Ireland:

For its part, the NSPCC, in a February 2022 policy briefing, stated that there is overwhelming evidence that physical punishment is not effective in managing children's behaviour. It is linked to a range of negative outcomes for children and is a key risk factor in physical abuse. An NSPCC survey of public attitudes at that time found that 65% of adults and 71% of parents support legal reform, with 14% of adults and 8% of parents considering physical punishment to be an acceptable form of discipline.

For our part, we say that removing the defence of reasonable chastisement is not about creating a new offence nor is it about criminalising parents. It is recognised that, if the defence were to be removed in Northern Ireland, it would be essential to provide support and guidance for parents to enable them to use other non-physical methods to chastise their children. My colleagues may be able to elaborate more on some of those points during the session.

It is also important to note our view that, if that were to be planned for repeal, a period of implementation would be desirable, if not essential, to raise awareness of the change in the law and to inform as many people as possible of the change in the legislative position. That was the case in Wales, which had a two-year implementation period. If that were the case, it would assist in reducing the potential scenario of parents being criminalised; the public would be aware that, at that point, it was against the law to physically punish a child, no matter how minor that chastisement may be. It would also give criminal justice agencies and other affected organisations the time to prepare and to put in place measures and processes well in advance of any change to the law.

I will conclude my remarks, before I pass over to Natalie, with a point about the legislative position. The Minister sought Executive approval last year to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement as part of the Justice Bill. There was no Executive agreement at that point to include that, but you will be aware that a notice of amendment to the Justice Bill has been tabled by Mrs Guy to abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment here.

Ms Natalie Whelehan (Children in Northern Ireland): Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. I am the chief executive of Children in Northern Ireland, the regional umbrella organisation for the children and young people's sector here. We have a broad membership of almost 140 organisations.

It is my pleasure to be here today to talk about a service that sits at the heart of family support: Parentline Northern Ireland. Our Parentline service, which we are contracted to provide by the Department of Health, plays a key role in providing positive parenting support and advice to parents. Parentline is a free, confidential and universal service for anyone caring for a child or young person in Northern Ireland. Every year, thousands of parents and carers reach out to us; there were over 7,000 contacts in the past financial year alone. We reach families in every trust area through our phone line, web chat and email channels. Our service is truly multi-channel, making it accessible to busy families, wherever they are and however they feel most comfortable reaching out. Open Monday to Saturday, it provides non-judgemental listening and practical parenting guidance and signposting to local services.

Parents contact Parentline about a wide range of issues. The most common themes include child behavioural challenges; screen time and tech; child and adult health and well-being, including mental health; education and school-related concerns; co-parenting; and the everyday pressures that come with juggling family life, including stress, work-life balance, relationship difficulties, and feelings of isolation. Every day, Parentline hears from parents who are struggling with children's behaviour and the challenges of family life. Parentline provides parents with strategies for positive discipline and ways in which to set boundaries, manage behaviour and reduce stress in the home in a positive way that encourages connection between parents and carers and their children. The approach taken by Parentline is compassionate, non-judgemental and person-centred. Parentline helps parents to find their calm, regain their confidence and strengthen relationships at home. It is one of the most compassionate and effective forms of early intervention that we have in Northern Ireland. The principles that guide the service are grounded in positive parenting, early intervention and connection over correction. Parentline helps parents to understand that their child's behaviour is a means of communication; a way of expressing needs and emotions. It focuses on giving them the practical tools to respond calmly and constructively. Our parent support team offers one-off help via a telephone call; follow-up one-to-one support; signposting to other sources of help or support; online workshops; discussion groups; and information-sharing by providing some of our expert resources, such as our go-to resources, including our Parentline Pathways guide, a copy of which I have with me, and our newly published Parent Well resource, which supports calm connections between parents and children. I have copies of that for the Committee.

We are very proud to partner with NSPCC Northern Ireland in its Take 5 Seconds positive parenting campaign, which is an initiative that encourages parents to pause, breathe and find their calm during challenging moments. The campaign's message is simple, but powerful: staying calm is not just good for parents; it is essential for children's well-being. Through our workshops and resources, we are helping parents across Northern Ireland to put positive parenting into practice, which strengthens family bonds, improves emotional well-being and creates calmer, more connected homes. The partnership between NSPCC Northern Ireland and CiNI reflects a shared vision that every child should grow up in a home free from fear or violence and that every parent should feel supported and not judged.

Our approach is twofold: pairing education and support with clear public messaging about what positive parenting looks like. The Take 5 Seconds campaign provides parents with simple, evidenced-based advice. Small steps make a big difference. Pause and breathe before you respond; calm helps children feel safe; keep it simple and steady, as children learn best through calm repetition; and stay connected. Small moments of warmth build trust, and support helps them to grow, so talk through feelings together with your children. However, remember, most of all, as parents, you are not alone: help is always available. Those are gentle, realistic messages that parents can put into practice straightaway. That is why they resonate. Small actions can make a big impact. Ultimately, Take 5 Seconds is about more than managing difficult moments; it is about building a culture of calm and connection at home, at schools and in communities. When parents feel supported, children thrive.

At Children in Northern Ireland, we believe that every parent deserves to feel supported. When we invest in parents, we invest in children's futures. Whether it is a moment of crisis or parents just needing reassurance, Parentline is there to listen, to guide and to remind parents that they are not alone.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much, Natalie, and thank you, Andrew, for that and for keeping it so concise.

Before I hand over to members, I seek clarification from the Department that it is content and supports all five subclauses of the amendment as it is written.

Mr Dawson: I do not think that the Department can have an official position at this point without Executive approval. The Minister has taken it to the Executive, and the Executive have made their position clear.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Which is?

Mr Dawson: The Executive's position is that they do not support the Department bringing an amendment to the Justice Bill to get rid of the defence of reasonable chastisement.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Yes, but now that we have an amendment in, is the Minister minded to support the amendment and all the subclauses?

Mr Dawson: I think that we are getting into the space of the ministerial code and the sort of decisions around what a Minister can do in respect of supporting a Back-Bench amendment while being a Minister in the Executive.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): She will have to make a decision at some point.

Mr Dawson: The Department has seen the text of the amendment, and we are seeking advice on how that will be best incorporated in the final version of the Bill. Therefore, while it is a Back Bench amendment, we will take an expert legal view of our own as to whether that amendment will work in practice. Then, when it comes to the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, if the amendment gets that far, we will be better qualified at that point to outline the position.

Sorry, that sounds really mealy-mouthed and evasive on my part, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Let me ask you it another way: is there anything in those subclauses that causes you alarm at this stage?

Mr Dawson: From the point of view of the Department, there is nothing that causes us alarm at this stage. I need to do a further bit of due diligence on our part around whether it will have the desired effect if it is eventually passed, but there is nothing that causes us alarm at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): OK.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance today and for your explanation. It is to be strongly welcomed that society's attitudes to physical punishment have changed within all our lifetimes and that the injury of children is not considered acceptable. They should be protected in law. As you explained, parents are rightly encouraged to use other techniques in adjusting children's behaviour and in discipline.

The question before us, however, is about the amendment, and I am strongly concerned that it has the potential to criminalise any physical touching of a child by a parent. The parent/child relationship is an important one, and it is not the same as other adult/child relationships. Parents have primary responsibility for the raising of their children. While we will all agree that we do not want to see children being physically punished, we may end up with a very brief change to the law that will potentially criminalise parents if there is any physical chastisement of a child in any circumstances, including when it is done in a loving way. That causes me real concern.

There is a reference to how the law was changed in Scotland and Wales. I think that that was done through an entire Bill rather than through just a brief amendment to a Bill, which we have here. Do you have concerns that a fundamental change such as this would need longer legislation rather than something so brief, which could be inadequate?

Mr Dawson: The reasoning behind bringing it in the Justice Bill is that it is a multi-subject Justice Bill anyway; it has a number of unrelated but justice-specific issues. This issue would be classed as one of those to be brought forward. I do not think that the vehicle that it is brought under makes any difference, whether a Bill on its own or a clause in a multi-subject Bill. That is not much of an issue. What is key is that, if it was to be brought as part of the Justice Bill, the Assembly might wish to think about staggering its commencement date to allow for any implementation planning period. You would not necessarily have all the provisions of the Bill coming in at once. You could look at making it later in respect of reasonable chastisement, if you felt that an implementation period was possible. The vehicle itself is not an issue for us.

Mr Kingston: Even in the amount of public engagement and consultation, a stand-alone Bill receives much greater attention. There is the consultation process, evidence taken and an opportunity for scrutiny. I am concerned that an amendment for such a fundamental matter, which reaches into every family, does not give society the opportunity to think it through and be consulted.

Mr Dawson: That is a fair point. It is an issue that has been well aired. I think that it will be aired again in public once the amendment comes to be discussed. At the point when the amendment is moved, it would be up to the Assembly to decide whether there has been sufficient public debate and discussion on it. From a purely legislative process point of view, it is not an issue, but it will be for the Assembly to decide on whether all Members are satisfied that the matter had been well enough aired.

Mr Kingston: Has the Department carried out a formal assessment on how many additional social service referrals and police investigations have arisen where those changes have been made, in particular in Wales and Scotland?

Mr Dawson: There has been no formal assessment yet. That is primarily because we have to concentrate our resources on Executive-agreed policy for the most part; so no formal study. There will probably need to be something formal as this progresses, but I can give you the information that I have at the moment.

The Welsh Government prepared for the removal of the defence with a two-year implementation period. They put a comprehensive strategy in place and had a public awareness campaign. The Act that abolished the defence requires the preparation of two reports on how the Act has been implemented and made effective. One of those reports is due around the end of this year, and the other in 2027. We will certainly study carefully the one that will be produced this year to see the effect in Wales.

I understand that the Welsh Government collect data from local authorities, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). I gather that the last full year of CPS monitoring data available from the Welsh Government is 2023-24. The number of reported cases that have been brought under the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Act 2020 is not published because the number is fewer than five. Publication would, therefore, pose a risk of identification and disclosure of personal information. What I can say about Wales is that the number of prosecutions is fewer than five.

In March 2022, the Welsh Government set up an out-of-court parenting support grant in preparation for the Act coming into force. That grant provides funding for bespoke parenting support that the police can refer people to as an alternative to prosecution in cases in which the police feel that an out-of-court disposal is more appropriate. I understand that the support is designed to encourage and support parents to adopt positive parenting techniques along the lines that Natalie covered in her presentation. From 2022 to date, we understand, 365 individuals in Wales have been referred to that scheme, of which 335 have taken up the offer. Of the 310 who completed the scheme, 265 reported a positive outcome. We need to look at that. I am no expert on the Welsh system, but it seems as though the person who has been charged has an element of discretion as to whether they participate. We would need to look at how that would work in practice here. That is the position in Wales.

In England, the legislation has not been repealed, as you know, but I understand that the Department for Education there is looking closely at the Welsh and Scottish experiences.

In 2020, Scotland removed the defence of reasonable punishment. The change came into effect on Royal Assent, so, unlike in Wales, there was no implementation period. There was no lead-in time and no public awareness campaign. Again, we will look at that more closely; however, I gather that there was an initial impact on police and social services caseloads but that, as time has gone on and the change has bedded in, the experience has improved. No statistics are available on the impact of the removal of the defence in Scotland. Social services in Scotland reported an initial spike in child protection cases, but that levelled out, and numbers remain very low. Before we do anything, we would want to examine those numbers carefully.

I will complete the picture with the Republic of Ireland, where the common law defence of reasonable chastisement was abolished in 2015 under the Children First Act. We might do a bit of work with the Irish Government in due course to find out how it has worked in the 10 years since, but we do not have any further detail yet.

Mr Kingston: I have one further question on that. Do you have any indication of the cost implications of the change for any of those jurisdictions?

Mr Dawson: I have nothing in front of me on the cost. We will certainly look at that. I imagine that, with a proper lead-in period, the bulk of any cost would be in the public awareness campaign and advertising. Through careful planning, we will seek to minimise the impact on the police and social services and therefore avoid any major costs to them. As I am talking to you today, I think that any spending would be on public awareness.

Mr Kingston: Would there also be spending on additional cases?

Dr Oisin Martin (Department of Health): In a similar vein, like Andrew, I have taken a bit of time to access official Welsh data. Between 2022 and 2025, £2·4 million was allocated to the out-of-court support programme, but, as was mentioned, there was no surge in prosecutions of the type that had been raised as a concern in some quarters. I went further back, to the experiences of the repeal in Finland in the early 1980s. The evaluation of the impact of that shows that it was really important to clearly delineate professional roles and responsibilities and expectations. In Northern Ireland, we have a well-established corpus of policy guidance on that to describe how social services, in tandem with the police, manage allegations of child maltreatment. In my experience as a practitioner and manager for many years, the application of judicious decision-making in that regard is a well-established tenet between social services and the police. There is no attempt here to needlessly criminalise parents. Natalie spoke very eloquently about the overall conceptual framework as one that tries to promote an approach to parenting that achieves a bond between the parent and child and that does not resort to the application of force. The application of force sets the locus of control external to the child, but it is about trying to encourage the child to make the journey towards self-actualisation by regulating themselves. We appreciate that there are deeply held philosophical views and concerns about it, but the direction of travel is towards society being increasingly intolerant of the physical chastisement of children.

Mr Kingston: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Before I bring Patsy in, I want to continue questions to you, Andrew, about the referrals to the out-of-court parenting support grant, while you have that information in front of you. Thirty individuals did not take up the offer. What happened to them?

Mr Dawson: I cannot say for certain. There was probably a variety of outcomes. As MLAs, you may want to look at the discretionary nature of taking that offer up. While 30 individuals did not take it up, a further 25 —

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): They did not complete the scheme.

Mr Dawson: — did not complete the scheme. Consideration needs to be given to what the cause and effect of that might be. You would need to have quite a bit of encouragement for participation in the scheme if it is to be an alternative to out-of-court disposals. Again, the Assembly needs to satisfy itself on the point about whether more of a mandatory element should be introduced.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do you think that they went back to court?

Mr Dawson: I imagine that some of them probably did, but, again, I cannot say for certain. We are dealing with relatively small numbers as well, so I am not sure of the extent to which the Welsh Government will be able to give us extreme detail on all those people. Certainly, we will ask them that question and report back to you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Is social services involved in the parenting support grant?

Mr Dawson: Yes, it is one of the bodies to which, as I understand it, referrals are made. It is on hand to provide support too. You need to look at whether you want that to be replicated in Northern Ireland. If so, I imagine that the DOH will want to look at the potential cost of that as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do we know how many of those 365 individuals could be grouped as parents in one family?

Mr Dawson: No, I do not know that, but, again, we can see whether we can find that out.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): There were 265 who reported a positive outcome. What does a positive outcome look like?

Mr Dawson: To me, that seems to be subjective on the part of those who participated in the scheme. The individuals themselves, rather than the authorities, reported a positive outcome. I imagine that it would have been fairly subjective for each of the individuals.

This is a bit of a crass analogy, so apologies in advance for it. It is not of the same importance, but it might be similar to doing the speed awareness course rather than getting three penalty points on your licence. That would be a positive outcome for you as the driver in the sense that you do not have three penalty points on your licence, there is no prosecution, and you have picked up some additional information. Again, it is not a direct analogy or the best one, but I imagine that they would have seen that as a positive outcome.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Do we know what happened to the 70 individuals who did not report a positive outcome?

Mr Dawson: No, but, again, we can try to find that out for you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If you were to witness someone physically chastising a child on a public street or in their own property, what would you be advised to do?

Mr Dawson: As a bystander? I am not entirely sure of that position. I do not know whether my colleagues know.

Dr Martin: In practice, that does not happen as often as you might think. One of the particular challenges for child protection that arises in social work practice is dealing with allegations from people who want to remain anonymous. In the type of scenario that you outlined —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): There is Crimestoppers.

Dr Martin: Yes, there are anonymous phone lines that people can phone. I have been aware of those through practice, particularly out of hours. In my experience, the responses that are enacted to that type of referral tend to be judicious and proportionate. Frequently, you are engaging with parents who have complex issues that need to be taken into account in the wider sense. It is difficult to be prescriptive about what the advice would be, because sometimes you could encourage people to intervene, which would not be the correct thing to do, as they could foment an even more complex situation or put themselves in harm's way.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): If you think that a criminal act is taking place, you are advised to ring 999. Would it be the Health Department and the Justice Department's advice to ring 999 in these cases?

Dr Martin: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for your presentation. I have just a couple of wee items for clarification, specifically on the change in the law. Was that fully supported? I ask that because I read that there was "no cross-Executive support" for the issue. Was it fully supported by the Department of Health?

Mr Dawson: I will allow colleagues to answer that. Again, I think that no real issue was identified.

Dr Martin: I do not think that we are in a position to answer that, Patsy. We can look into it and feed back to the Committee

Mr McGlone: Do you not know?

Dr Martin: I do not know, no.

Mr McGlone: Right. Obviously, if two Departments are working together and one is not supportive of the other, it would make a bit of an anomaly of the situation, would it not? Thank you for that. That is important too.

I will go back to the amendment, which is very important as well. Does it reflect the DOJ thinking that has brought us to this point?

Mr Dawson: What the amendment proposes would be a fairly simple change to make to the law; I will not use the word "easy". There is not much difference that could occur between anybody making the amendment and us, because it is essentially fairly simple.

Mr McGlone: So, it does, then?

Mr Dawson: Again, we do not have any official thinking, because there is no Executive support for it, but, again, no issue with it —.

Mr McGlone: I am not asking whether it is getting Executive support. Obviously, you in DOJ have spent a bit of time on the issue and have a feel for it. We have had briefing papers on it. All that I want to know is that someone somewhere — you said that you had sent it off to the legal people, who were looking at consequences and all that — especially you, as you have spent a lot of time on this, has an idea of this: does the amendment reflect, there or thereabouts, the Department's thinking on the issue?

Mr Dawson: It reflects the thinking that we brought to the Executive for approval.

Mr McGlone: From the Department?

Mr Dawson: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Very good. That is OK; that is all that I wanted.

Mr Dawson: Sorry, I am just very aware of the fact that I am tiptoeing around what are maybe difficult constitutional issues, so I apologise.

Mr McGlone: At the end of the day, you are here representing the DOJ, are you not?

Mr Dawson: Yes. Absolutely.

Mr McGlone: That is what I am asking you about. That is OK. Chair, thank you.

Mr Baker: Thank you. I will try not to pull you into the political side of it. The proposal has to come through as an amendment, because it clearly has not been allowed to go through to the Executive from the Justice Minister. It could probably be said that an amendment on the age of criminal responsibility could also come from a Back-Bencher. On that matter, we on the Education Committee recently experienced the fact that even Committee amendments may not get accepted so may not end up in the Assembly. This amendment may not end up in the Assembly to even be debated if the Speaker does not choose it. Is preparation work going on between the two Departments so that, if it is agreed, it can move forward at pace? It will obviously need a lead-in time, so what do you recommend as a lead-in time?

Mr Dawson: Early preparation is ongoing. As I mentioned, we will take our own legal advice on the amendment on whether it will do the job that it is intended to do. We are a few months out yet from when it will be debated. The Committee Stage ends on 26 March, and the opportunity for the amendment to be moved will be at Consideration Stage, so you are talking after Easter at the earliest. Between now and then, yes, we will be working with DOH in preparation for both our Departments' response to the amendment. That is both on the legal position and any practical implications for the health side and the social services side.

Mr Baker: The reason why I caveat that is because it may not even end up in the Order Paper. Children's rights advocates have been championing it for a very long time. What next steps could there be in an education piece for parents? It was not too long ago that it was acceptable for teachers to chastise children. In the old days, they used a cane. You still hear remarks about that; I hear people in my social circles say, "A wee smack did not do me any harm", but we know the harm that it causes. It is physical, and, certainly, if someone were to physically attack any one of us, they would face ramifications, which is what we want to prevent. We want to prevent that physical harm being done to young people.

Mr Dawson: Again, colleagues from DOH and Children in NI might be better qualified to talk about the content of any public awareness campaign. For our part, we would be keen for it to be well designed. It would not be done just by we civil servants on the policy side, who do not really know how to communicate that well; we would certainly seek some professional advice on it.

Dr Martin: A considerable number of parenting programmes are already in situ, and we heard a little bit from Natalie about the framework that she has been instrumental in developing. In answer to your query, I will say that we would be seeking to commission and bring into being an extension of that, so more of the same. I do not know that we would seek to commission or pull out of the ether a distinct programme of intervention for people who smack their children. It is about trying to promote positive behavioural support for children, and it is pretty much an extension of that sort of conceptual framework that places the child at the centre.

One of the things that occurred to me in preparation for today's Committee meeting is the amount of work that is taking place to try to provide in-reach to the schools and promote a sort of scholastic environment where children are assisted in dealing with anxiety and issues at home. You hear the narrative from teachers all the time — I am sure that you have heard this in the Education Committee — that so much time has to be invested in managing the social issues in the classroom before you get anywhere near the curriculum. We are trying to develop that sort of synthesis. We have seen initiatives, such as the emotional well-being teams for schools, through which we are trying to equip our colleagues in education with the theoretical and conceptual tools to manage those issues.

A very important point was made that the starting point for an awful lot of this work needs to be the home. It is not just about creating a programme for people who have maybe been referred to social services or the police because they have been observed physically chastising their children; it is about trying to get more parenting programmes out there. As we are sitting here today, I know that seven of the 29 family support hubs are reporting areas of unmet need across the Province in the capacity to develop parenting programmes. We really need to dial into that and augment and develop what is out there.

Mr Baker: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Ms Egan: What I wanted to raise has maybe been covered, but the input from the Department of Health on this is really important. We have seen that real input where it has happened and how such legislative change has taken place in other jurisdictions. I really appreciated the contributions supporting change from Children in NI and the other organisations from which we received briefing papers. I am keen to hear a bit more about any work that the Department of Health is already doing to support positive parenting interventions and how it will maybe work with other jurisdictions following the submission of the amendment, if it passes.

Dr Martin: The frameworks from which a lot of the integration with the community and voluntary sector is walked out into the region are the children and young people strategic partnerships and the family support hubs. They provide a platform for a significant number of voluntary sector agencies. Natalie might be better positioned than me to speak authoritatively on that.

It is that type of parenting support programme through which we will try to generate extra capacity. If we were having this conversation 35 or 40 years ago, we would find that there would be an expectation of the old health and social care boards or trusts to provide an in-house parenting programme. Increasingly, however, we have seen that type of work take place in the family support domain through community and voluntary sector partners. However, it is not straightforward in the community and voluntary sector world either; it has the same workforce and capacity challenges, and there is a real need to invest in it.

Ms Whelehan: Absolutely. Just to come in on that, Oisin, the Department of Health has contracted the Parentline service to us, and we run it. As I touched on in my opening remarks, it is very focused on positive parenting and on educating parents about that. We know from research that the NSPCC carried out in Northern Ireland that attitudes towards physical punishment have changed and parents do not think that it is acceptable any more; only 8% of parents think that physical punishment is an acceptable form of discipline. Parents are not receiving information on positive parenting, and we also know that only about a third of parents said that they had ever received information about positive parenting.

Parentline is a vital service for supporting parents. As Oisin said, there are all kinds of difficulties with capacity in the community and voluntary sector that are also in the public services. The parents who reach us are the lucky ones, but we want to be able to reach more parents. Obviously, we need more resources to do that. However, the Department has been hugely supportive of Parentline, and we are very focused on providing parents with effective strategies that will allow them to parent their children while being focused on connection and on understanding behaviour as a method of communication. A lot of work is being done, and there is more to do, but parents are very much telling us that that is what they need and want, and there is evidence to back that up.

Dr Martin: Increasingly, a diffuse range of media is being used to inculcate that messaging in society. It is no longer the case that you have to have a linear relationship with a social worker or a project worker in an office setting, particularly in the years after the coronavirus pandemic. We can see a lot of information being put online or through QR codes and helplines. We are thinking progressively about how we can percolate the messaging down into society in order to put the resources at people's disposal in diffuse ways that are meaningful to them.

Ms Pamela Mooney (Department of Health): From a safeguarding perspective, the Department of Health has had conversations with the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland (SBNI) because it has wider partner agencies. Danny mentioned the involvement of education, youth justice and all our different agencies, so it will need a multi-agency, multidisciplinary approach. We had started conversations, and we have also started to have conversations in our health and social care trusts. Again, because it is very tentative and in the discussion phase, we cannot progress anything further until we know where we are going. However, there have been discussions.

Ms Egan: Thank you all for your responses. They were really comprehensive, and I appreciate that.

Mr Bradley: Thanks very much for your presentation. Any kind of physical or mental violence against a child is wrong and should be stamped out in any way possible. My daughter had twins — a boy and a girl — and I have not seen either of them use the naughty step. It is unbelievable how obedient they are.

I just want to flag this up. What percentage of children who have not been reasonably chastised by a parent have gone on to get involved in violent crime or antisocial behaviour in either the community or an educational establishment? We need to have a counterbalance. The other thing that we need to get right is the education. My grandchildren educated me to put on a seat belt, because every time they are in the car, they say, "Granda — seat belt". Children have the ability to educate their parents. If they are going home from an educational establishment and saying to their parents, "Mummy, you can't beat me" or, "Daddy, you can't beat me. You can put me on the naughty step", parents will catch on very quickly. I am talking about chastisement. Anybody who is really violent towards a child deserves to be prosecuted and incarcerated. With regard to normal chastisement, if the child is educating the parents in what the child learns at school, that is the best way to go forward. I do not think that we are investing enough in our education as opposed to all those other agencies that are out there. We need to concentrate on teaching the child at school and on teaching the parents through the child.

That is it, Chair. Thank you very much. I will look forward to the debate in the Chamber.

Mr Beattie: Thank you for the presentation. Some of the questions have been really good. I am looking at this from a legislative point of view for now, if I may, because that is what is really important. Brian Kingston made the really good point that the Welsh Government had a whole Bill covering the issue because it is so complicated, yet we are shoehorning it into a very small amendment. I am not sure that it covers everything that we need to cover or understand. That is where my concern is at the moment. I am not saying that I am for or against it; I am just concerned about the legislative vehicle that we are using in this instance.

I will ask a couple of questions that will show you where I am confused — well, not confused — or where there might be confusion. You may have a child with special educational needs, and they have a meltdown at home. I know about that, because I have a grandson who is like that, and the family has to use a hold technique. A hold technique can be viewed as physical punishment. It is not battery; that will be the subject of a different question. What are we doing in that response if that child goes into school the next day and says that he was physically punished by his parents, but what they were actually doing was just a hold technique? How do we get round that?

Dr Martin: I imagine that, in practice, that would be responded to through a compassionate lens. An understanding perspective would be adopted to a parent who was genuinely trying to contend with a child with complex needs. There is an evolving wider debate on restrictive practices. You are absolutely right: there are families out there who are having to contend with very challenging and complex behaviours. We are aware of the premium that is attached to how we support those families. In a sense, the scenario that you outlined is an extension of a wider debate on how we can support those families in a way that does not unduly stigmatise or treat differentially a parent who is in that situation. To cut to the central point that you put about how that issue would be responded to, I will go back to my opening remarks and say that it will be responded to with compassion. It would be recognised that that parenting was born not of abusive intent but of a genuine desire to keep a child safe. In that context, an obligation rests with not only the trusts but people who work in education to develop a supportive matrix around a parent and try to offer support.

Mr Beattie: That is a great answer. You are absolutely right. However, in practice, that is not always the case. You will, of course, know that, once a teacher suddenly finds that they have been confronted with something like that and the legislation that we have does not define it in any great detail, they will feel compelled to go to social services and social services will then feel compelled to go to the family. Before you know it, the family feels stigmatised over something that they are doing that, as you just explained, is perfectly right in many ways and deserves compassion, but the stigma is already there. I guess that the point that I am making is this: that is not in the amendment. It is now down to something else and a different interpretation. I have a concern about that.

I will raise another issue where I have concern —.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Just before you do, Doug, Pamela wants to come in.

Ms Mooney: You described a scenario in which the education sector would contact the social worker and then get a referral to social services, and you said that there would be stigma around that. That is what we need to try to demystify, because the social worker is there to try to support the family.

The referral to social workers might trigger a response through which they can provide more support to that family and, in a compassionate way, identify that other things are going on. It may be that the parents are really struggling to cope. It is about developing pathways so that the parents can be referred not into statutory services but to the left and into our voluntary and community sector. That referral could lead to a positive outcome; it is not all negative.

Mr Beattie: Absolutely; it is not all negative. I am maybe looking at the worst-case scenario. I have seen that happen and have seen families being stigmatised because of those situations and when the neighbours are looking to see what is going on. I have also seen the police being called to a house for the same reason. I have seen both ends of what you are saying, but you are absolutely right. However, my concern is that the amendment that we are talking about does not cover any of that. It is so small. I will go back to what Brian Kingston said at the start. Wales has a whole Bill dedicated to this matter, but we are looking at one amendment.

May I ask another question? It is on a topic that I am really interested in. I do not like physical punishment in any shape or form. I will lay that on the table. What about a situation in which there is no physical punishment but you scream at your child? In a situation where you cannot use any form of reasonable chastisement — I will use that term — what happens when you have frustrations and scream at your child? That screaming creates the same fear, mental stress and anxiety in the child and is brought about because we are removing reasonable chastisement. How do we deal with that?

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Just before you answer that, be aware of the fact that you are talking to a former regimental sergeant major. [Laughter.]

Dr Martin: We are looking at two sides of the same coin. We are looking at parenting that is taking place in conditions of extreme stress. You are looking at a parent who has, essentially, lost the run of themselves. It falls into that same operational framework in which you are trying to get that parent to take five, to use that language, and to take a step back and reflect on how they are responding to the situation that is in front of them. That all sounds lovely. I am conscious of that and of the fact that it sounds great in the abstract, but sitting here in the comfort of this room, we are a million miles away from the stressful situations that an awful lot of parents encounter.

Frequently, the types of referrals that social services receive about inappropriate chastisement, or, as you outlined, ineffectual and emotionally abusive parenting, happen in the case of families who have a much broader constellation of needs and vulnerabilities. They are frequently described in intergenerational terms. It is really important that, as Pamela said, we try to shift left with those families and engage them in a way that is preventative. Prevention has been part of the ethos of social services since the introduction of the Children Act 1989 and before then, but we have seen that it is sometimes really difficult to ring-fence resource in and around the preventative part of the overall matrix of services when so much emphasis is placed on the safeguarding and child protection traditions.

The challenges that you mentioned about stigma are well rehearsed in social work circles. Families very frequently do not want to engage with the statutory side of health and social care in that way. It is really important that we look at our partnerships with the community and voluntary sector agencies and the local strategic avenues in order to provide that support.

Mr Beattie: That goes to the positive parenting that we talked about. I get all that. I will remind you that I am looking at this from a legislative point of view. I wonder what will be kicked out of the amendment were it to go through.

May I ask the panel another question? What is your definition of battery, as far as this matter is concerned? What is battery?

Dr Martin: Battery is the physical laying-on of an implement or hands. It is a term that, frankly, does not get used in social work practice. I cannot speak for colleagues in criminal justice or policing. In the past, the term was used frequently in the discourse on domestic violence. It has fallen out of fashion, because there is a connotation in the phrase "to be battered" and to be labelled a "batterer". Other people will be better versed than I am in the lexicon of the law, but battery, as I understand it, means to inflict physical harm.

Mr Beattie: I get that. I am trying to get to what we mean when we say "battery". To me, battery means something else. To me, it means real physical harm whereby you leave strokes or marks on the person whom you are hitting, as opposed to using the back of your hand on a nappy. That is where I was trying to get to on that.

May I ask one last question of the panel, please? Again, this is just for me. You talked about not criminalising parents, but the reality is that we could end up criminalising them. From the research that I did, I found that, in Wales this year alone, 21% of all the cases on the issue that are being looked at are now with the police. They crossed over from the social services support plan, but 21% are sitting with the police, so it could be that 21% of the parents in such cases are criminalised.

I will go to your well-made point that there were lots of awareness campaigns about the matter in Wales, but it worked in Wales because they had a whole Bill to deal with it. We are looking at just one amendment, which could result in a radical change in society here. I am slightly concerned that we do not have enough information to make sure that we protect the families that are in these cases out there.

Mr Dawson: I will address the point about the Bill. Wales and, indeed, Scotland have stand-alone Acts that abolished the defence. Without getting into all the text, section 1 of the Welsh Act is fairly similar to the proposed amendment to the Justice Bill here. Section 2 creates a duty on the Welsh Government to "promote public awareness", and section 3 creates a duty to produce reports on how the measures are being implemented. Such a report is coming out later this year, and there will be another in 2027. There are also powers to make regulations on the Act's coming into force. Again, that is a fairly short Act, and it does not go into the detail on what constitutes battery etc.

Similarly, the Scottish Act is fairly short, with just five sections. Again, on a similar basis, there is the abolition of the defence and the duty to raise awareness. As I understand it, the Children First Act 2015 in Ireland relates just to the general welfare of children. The abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement is dealt with in one section of the Act, which, I think, was moved as an amendment to what was the Bill at the time. I just wanted to outline the mechanics of the legislation in those jurisdictions. I am happy to go into further detail if that would be helpful.

Mr Beattie: I get that those were short Bills. Our amendment is 10 lines. That is what we are talking about — 10 lines and nothing more.

That has been really useful for me. Thank you very much. I will say this again: I am looking at this to make sure that, if we agree the amendment, we give enough to parents out there to make sure that a lot of the things that we talked about here are covered. Chair, thank you for your indulgence.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): No problem.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, panel. I declare an interest. I was a family support coordinator for many years in the greater Shantallow area, so I very much know about the fantastic work that is done through Parentline and, likewise, the regional parenting programmes and the vital work of our family support hubs, which need more investment and resources. They get quite nominal resources, but they do amazing work.

The North is an outlier on the issue in comparison with not just the UK but Europe, and we are an outlier in the view of the public. We have discussed different scenarios here. If the public see someone yelling, shouting or whatever in public, they get upset and annoyed, and they do not want to tolerate that any longer. A compassionate approach can be taken to it. Support mechanisms already exist through the Department of Health and our communities. Maurice mentioned the importance of education. As a granny, I know that our grandkids come and tell me many things.

I have a couple of quick questions. We have covered a wee bit of this, but what time frame do you propose for the implementation, if the amendment passes? I am conscious of all the layers and structures that already exist for implementation. As we have discussed, there are three elements involved: the legislation; the awareness campaign; and the measurement of implementation.

Dr Martin: I will go first. It makes sense to have a lead-in period. In Wales, we have seen a significant effort to inculcate in society the messaging, and there are a number of platforms through which you will be seeking to do that, such as trusts, primary care, multidisciplinary teams, family support hubs and local arrangements. It is therefore only sensible to have a lead-in period in which you will be getting the message out into the community.

Schools are also a vital platform for children. With any sort of shift in the policy canon, it makes sense to have a run-in period. If you are asking me to specify a period, I think that it should be measured in no longer than months, but it needs to be done in tandem with having something to offer. It brings me back to the remark that I made earlier about the experience in Finland 45 years ago. It is important to get the detail right and to delineate people's roles. Pamela spoke about some of the early discussions that are taking place with the SBNI. I imagine that there will also be discussions with colleagues in policing.

You have hit on a fundamental truth about resourcing. As I said earlier, referrals to our family support hubs for parenting programmes can range from 17% to 50%, but seven of the 29 family support hubs across the region are reporting unmet need. We therefore need to be attentive to that, because, although the experience in Wales has not demonstrated a surge in criminal proceedings, it is probably reasonable to anticipate that there will be a rising demand as a result of that sort of parenting approach in our communities.

Ms Mooney: It will also need to feed into the joint protocol process. There will be allegations of significant harm, but we will need to know the threshold of significant harm before interviewing the child or speaking to the family in order to ensure that it is met. Joint working and conversations between the police and social services on the threshold for significant harm need to take place so that we know whether it has been reached and whether a crime has been committed. We do not want to get to the criminalisation stage.

Dr Martin: From listening to the conversation that has taken place here today, I imagine that consideration may well need to be given to how you would frame an intervention programme for a parent who was diverted into that programme through court. It strikes to the point that was made earlier: what does a successful intervention look like? Sometimes, that will pivot on a subjective assessment of the calibre of a parent's engagement, but, frequently, it will pivot on a certain percentage of appointments having been attended. That, in turn, may demand that there be some engagement with our partners in the community and voluntary sector to reframe the way in which those sessions are offered and delivered.

I do not mean that to be a source of additional stigma. We need to be alert to why a parent would be deflected into that. Again, however, the big emphasis needs to be on prevention —

Ms Ferguson: One hundred per cent, yes.

Dr Martin: — and on getting the message out into communities and families before it ever gets to a point at which somebody loses control or finds themselves being referred to the police or social services. You are absolutely right: school is the engine room of childhood learning. It is important to get the conversations right in schools, because school, as well as the home, is where children consolidate their view of the world around them.

Ms Ferguson: I do not know whether you can answer this, but the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has been unable to identify specific cases in which the defence of reasonable chastisement would have come into play, and it is not possible to search for such cases on its case management system. Can you explain what the reason for that might be? Are you aware of why that is the case?

Mr Dawson: I would need to rely on the PPS to answer that question, because I am not sure. It could be that the Public Prosecution Service does not —

Ms Ferguson: Does it not track it?

Mr Dawson: — record it in that particular way and thus cannot pull the information out. As you said, and as I understand it, it cannot search for it on the case management system, so I assume that it does not record it by keyword or anything like that. The PPS would probably be better able to explain the whys and the wherefores. I am happy to follow up on that with colleagues, however.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you. Where do you see the lead responsibility for governance and accountability sitting should the amendment come into being? What work would need to be done to measure its benefits? I know that you are not down that road yet and that it is about cross-departmental working, but what are your thoughts on where the governance would sit?

Dr Martin: An important part of the governance framework for the excellent work that has been taken forward by our partners in the community and voluntary sector is through the children and young people's strategic partnerships. There is an oversight role for the SPPG of some of the contracts held in the voluntary sector.

I have not got a well-rehearsed answer to the question, but I imagine that the cases that result in a mandated deflection from court will probably be those that are open to social work in the trusts. I therefore imagine that there will be a role for the trusts to play as well. In truth, however, I am making that remark without having discussed it with the trusts. It is important to bear that in mind. Do you have any thoughts on that, Pamela?

Ms Mooney: I suppose that there would also be a record whenever cases have gone through the criminal process under the joint protocol using achieving best evidence (ABE). We are looking at the cadre model and the pilot in the Southern Trust. If that were to be part of it, the trust could begin to think about capturing data. If a child is referred and has been spoken to, and it is agreed that it will be done under single agency, the joint protocol or whatever, where the child is directed to could be captured through that process.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): The way in which you answered one of Ciara's questions intrigued me. You talked about the lead-in period being a sensible approach, but I think that it was Pamela who talked about there being a threshold of significant harm to be identified. Are you therefore saying that there is a reasonable punishment out there? You do not have to answer that, Pamela. It is open to the group.

Dr Martin: We were reflecting on the fact that there is a threshold for the evidence that the police feel that they need in order to move forward with a potential prosecution. "Significant harm" is also a threshold that is summoned into being in public law applications that have been brought by the health and social care trusts for care orders where a threshold has been reached at which, not to sound pedantic, the harm to the child is at a significant threshold. That threshold is necessarily set quite high. It is a significant burden for the trusts to meet.

In practice, however, as Pamela said, the cases that are referred are managed through the joint protocol, which is a memorandum between social services and police. Those cases that result in a clear delineation of physical injury are cases in which a child has clearly been physically abused and a threshold has been reached to move forward with a prosecution.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): What are people charged with at that point?

Dr Martin: I cannot definitively answer that. That question would be better posed to somebody in policing.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): I will refer to article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 — "Physical punishment of children" — which would be repealed by the proposed amendment, so I am talking in legalese for a reason. The article refers to:

The Order has been modernised to include, "non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation". Those are the sorts of serious criminal sanctions that we have for protecting our children. Where, then, will the offence for smacking come in?

Mr Dawson: The 2006 Order covers battery. As I understand it, it lists offences that cannot be justified or defined as reasonable punishment. It lists things that cannot be justified on that basis.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): How does a social worker or a police officer prove that a child has been smacked?

Dr Martin: I do not know that the people in front of you are the best people to answer that question today. Those judgements pivot on the types of assessments that forensic medical officers and senior doctors carry out. There is clear evidence out there of children who have what is clearly a handprint on their body or a type of bruise that can have been inflicted only by something straight or mechanical. We are leaning into a specialist area of medical practice, in which fine judgements are made about the site of injuries. Particular areas of injury are red flags as far as senior paediatricians are concerned. Such distinctions tend to be made through nuanced work done alongside senior doctors and through physical examination. It is not for a social worker to make a pronouncement on whether clear evidence of physical injury is attributable to an act of chastisement or abuse. Arriving at that decision would come about through a multidisciplinary discussion.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): You may not have had sight of this, but the departmental Assembly liaison officer sent a letter dated 31 October about reasonable chastisement that states:

How does it make it more difficult? What does that mean?

Ms Mooney: There is a lack of clarity.

Mr Dawson: That is in a letter from the Department. I think that that is quoting the royal college's report. It makes the point that if there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, and that defence is used for children who are smacked, it is sometimes difficult at the moment for professionals to differentiate between those cases and cases in which there is routine abuse.

Dr Martin: In practice, assessments of need and risk that are carried out in the social work domain are not binary or linear. They will take account of specific incidences or of things that happened in extremis, but the assessment framework is wide-ranging and ecological. It explores what is happening to the child in the round, both in the domestic setting at home and with the child's physical and emotional development. Those assessments ask questions of professionals in other professions as well, particularly in education and public health nursing. There is therefore no rush to judgement on a referral that comes in the door about a child who is alleged to have been physically harmed by a parent. Rather, there is an attempt to understand things in the round.

Having clarity on the defence of reasonable chastisement would be helpful for removing that part of the overall conversation about what has happened. To go back, however, to the point that was made on a number of occasions earlier, the intent here, and the dismantling of some of the stigma around the role of social services, is not to arrive at a position at which parents can be vilified or prosecuted. It is generally about trying to be preventative and about responding proportionately and with practice wisdom. Where thresholds have been met and children have been harmed, it is relatively straightforward to delineate, but it happens on a multi-professional basis, with the correct medically qualified people being in the room.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): We have cited some of the problems in Scotland with Royal Assent and implementation, but the same letter of 31 October states:

Can you provide details of the impact on social workers and the police and tell us what is meant by that?

Mr Dawson: For social services, there was certainly an initial spike in cases. I do not have the exact number of cases in front of me. We will look at that as part of our preparation, if and when the amendment is made.

Ms Mooney: It is about the criminalisation of parents and about getting clarity in order to try to work with the family. We will say either, "We have new legislation, so we have to go down this draconian route" or, "What was the context? How did it happen? What is best for this family?". Should we therefore go down a criminal route, or is it better that we put the family on a family support pathway and give them support? It is probably a case of trying to work that out.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Might I assume something, dangerous as I know it to be? In 2020, there was a spike in child protection cases during lockdown. How can we be sure that that spike was down to the removal of the reasonable chastisement or punishment law or relief or down to lockdown philosophy?

Dr Martin: We saw a lot of things happen during lockdown, not just a spike in child protection cases. In 2025, we are reflecting on the fact that parents and families were under an inordinate amount of stress during that period, particularly as a result of the decision to close schools. That compressed an awful lot of stress and pressure into the domestic setting. I am reluctant to rush to judgement about figures coming out of Scotland, but certainly, within the child and adolescent mental health world and the child with a disability world, that period was hugely significant and resulted in parents in particular being placed under an inordinate amount of pressure. When we talk about children with more complex needs, it must be borne in mind that school is much more than a place that they attend for education. School is a site at which a multidisciplinary range of services is frequently delivered. The loss of that structure and that nurturing environment during lockdown has had a significant impact on children and their families. That needs to be borne in mind, as it was a pressure-cooker environment.

Ms Whelehan: I will add to that. Chair. We saw the opposite here in 2020. We saw a drop in the number of child protection referrals in Northern Ireland, so much so that the NSPCC and the Department of Health launched a joint campaign to encourage tradespeople, taxi drivers and people who were still going into homes to report safeguarding concerns. That was a really worrying sign, because we knew that there were lots of children at home at the time who were in unsafe homes. People were therefore very concerned in Northern Ireland about that reduction in the number of child protection referrals. I suppose that the situation in Scotland is marked because of that difference, because there was an increase there in 2020.

Dr Martin: At the preventative end of what was available through social services, prior to the pandemic, an awful a lot of preventative parenting work took place in the form of group work sessions, where up to 15 families were able to be engaged. Real inroads were therefore able to be made into addressing the waiting list, whereas, during lockdown, novel ways of engaging a smaller group of families, perhaps through using tablets or, for example, Microsoft Teams, had to be thought of. That was no substitute, however.

There is something to be said for being in the same room as a parent and giving them an opportunity to engage in that setting. There were therefore a number of consequences during that period.

Ms Ferguson: I have one final question. It is for those of you from the Department of Health in particular. We very much see the positive impacts that the amendment would have on children. We very much see the positive impact of investment in family support hubs for parents and positive parenting. If the provision were to be implemented, what could be the long-term positive impact for social services and children's services?

Ms Mooney: There are a couple of things to say. We always work in the grey. As a social work practitioner, I know that things can be grey. The situation would therefore become much more black and white for practitioners on the ground, and they could start from a baseline.

Dr Martin: Legislation offers a prism through which society's values are refracted. In various ways and at various levels, there is a wider conversation to be had, in which we all have a part to play, about the place that violence has in our society and about the sort of society that we want to be a part of generating for the future. Attitudes towards the physical chastisement of children are changing anyway. I think that support for physical chastisement is exponentially decreasing year-on-year.

We know, however, that Northern Ireland has a very worrying rate of domestic homicides. Pamela and her colleagues are doing a considerable amount of work on the ending violence against women and girls strategy. I do not want to be gendered about it, but we need to try to introduce into early childhood experience the attitude that it is not OK for anyone to get hit: that it is not OK for anyone to hit me and that it is certainly not OK for me to lash out with violence or physical intent towards anyone else. If we manage to promote healthier messaging in that regard, that may start to have an impact on the types of issues that social services contend with in the longer term.

Ms Ferguson: Finally, we are all well aware of trauma-informed practice and of the amount of training now given across all Departments, and that is great to see. Do you see the defence of reasonable chastisement as being a box to tick when it comes to people's adverse childhood experiences? As we all know, there is a scoring matrix, and people tick how many adverse childhood experiences they had. Is slapping and other physical punishment an adverse childhood experience?

Dr Martin: I think that it is. You have to ask why a child who has been smacked would amend their behaviour. It would not be because they had learnt anything, other than that they suffer pain as a consequence of continuing with that behaviour. They have not been encouraged to reflect or to develop an internal working model through which they can recognise the impact of their behaviour on others. Ultimately, speaking on behalf of the child, I think that a child would experience it as something that was an unwelcome intrusion.

Doug talked earlier about people who say, "Well, it never did me any harm". Frequently, the people who get to say that are people who are in a fairly privileged position, but there is a silent cohort of children out there who do not have that voice. That is only my view.

Ms Whelehan: From the perspective of a children's organisation, the evidence base is really conclusive at this stage. It shows conclusively that physical punishment is damaging to children on a whole range of fronts. It can cause lifetime issues with mental health, increased aggression and a whole range of other things. We know that now. We are not in the position that we were in 20 years ago. Today, we are much more informed about the impact of physical punishment on children. Not only can it cause lifelong damage to children but it can be a key risk factor for physical abuse.

Ciara, you asked about the impact on social services here. It is a particular issue for Northern Ireland, because 84% of our children here who are on the child protection register are on it because of physical abuse and neglect. If we want to address one of our key issues, which is why children here are on the child protection register, we need to break the link between physical punishment and physical abuse.

Children who are physically punished are among some of our most vulnerable groups of children. We often think of older teenagers, but research from across the word, including recent research from the World Health Organization, tells us that children who are physically punished are, in the main, aged between two and four. They are very young kids. We are not talking about older children or teenagers but about the most vulnerable children. We know about the link between physical abuse and the damage that it does, so changing the legislation in order to break that link would make a big difference to social services.

Ms Mooney: It is about the messaging. We are talking about ending violence against women and girls. It is therefore not OK for mum, or dad, to be beaten, yet it is still OK for us, as parents, to chastise our children. There are mixed messages in homes about how children are being brought up and taught and what we are trying to do publicly to end violence.

The Chairperson (Mr Frew): Thank you very much for your time. That session lasted nearly an hour and a half. We really appreciate your time. Thank you very much for answering all our questions. It was a very worthwhile session.

Mr Dawson: Thank you for your time.